Ayodhya Dispute

• The apex court told the Center – Build trust for the construction of the temple and plan it in three months.
• The disputed land of 2.77 acres will remain with the receiver of the Central Government.
• Supreme Court directed Muslims to allot alternate land to build a new mosque. The Sunni Waqf Board will be given 5 acres of suitable land at a prominent place to build a mosque.
• Supreme Court rejected the Nirmohi Akhara petition to gain control of the entire disputed land.
Ayodhya / New Delhi.

A 5-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court ruled on the Ayodhya case on Saturday. The Chairperson of the bench, CJI, read the decision for 45 minutes and said that trust should be created for the construction of the temple and its plan should be prepared in 3 months. The bench said that the Muslim side should be allotted 5 acres of alternative land for the construction of the mosque.
CJI Gogoi said that Hindu-Muslims consider the disputed place as the birthplace, but the owner cannot be decided by faith. The bench said that the demolished structure is the birthplace of Lord Rama, this belief of Hindus is unquestioned.

Highlights of Supreme Court’s decision

• Chief Justice said – We are giving the unanimous verdict. This court should accept the faith of religion and devotees. The court must maintain a balance.
• Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said – Mir Baqi built Babri Masjid. It would not be appropriate for the court to enter theology.
• The disputed land was marked as government land in the revenue records.
• Ram Janmabhoomi is not a judicial person, whereas Lord Ram can be a judicial person.
• The disputed structure was not a structure of Islamic origin. The Babri Masjid was not built on vacant land. The structure below the mosque was not an Islamic structure.
• Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has confirmed the fact that there was a temple under the demolished structure. Describing archaeological evidence as merely an opinion would be an insult to ASI. However, the ASI did not establish the fact that the temple was demolished and built a mosque.
• Hindus consider this place to be the birthplace of Lord Rama, even Muslims say the same about the disputed place. Books and ancient texts were written by ancient travelers indicate that Ayodhya has been the birthplace of Lord Rama. Historical examples also indicate that Ayodhya has been the birthplace of Lord Rama in the faith of Hindus.
• The demolished structure is the birthplace of Lord Rama, this belief of Hindus is unquestioned. However, ownership cannot be established on the basis of religion, faith. These can be signs of deciding a dispute.
• It has been found that Hindus used to worship at Ram Chabutara and Sita Rasoo even before the British era. Evidence recorded in the record suggests that the exterior of the disputed land was under the control of the Hindus.
The Supreme Court rejected the Shia Waqf Board’s special permission petition challenging the 1946 Faizabad court order. The Shia Waqf Board’s claim was over the disputed structure this has been rejected.
• Supreme Court rejects the Nirmohi Akhara claim. The Nirmohi Akhara sought the right to manage the birthplace.

Allahabad High Court had asked to divide the disputed land into 3 parts.

In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had said that the 2.77-acre area of ​​Ayodhya should be divided equally into three parts. One part will be given to the Sunni Waqf Board, the other to the Nirmohi Arena and the third to Ramlala Virajaman. 14 petitions were filed in the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision.
This decision will further strengthen India’s peace, unity, and goodwill: Modi
Prior to the decision, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had tweeted – Whatever decision of Supreme Court will come on Ayodhya, it will not be a victory or defeat of anyone. My appeal to the countrymen is that it should be the priority of all of us that this decision should further strengthen the great tradition of peace, unity, and goodwill of India.